That's Quite Enough About Breast Cancer!

Other Views

November 18, 1998|By Linda Perlman Gordon, Special to The Washington Post

Breast cancer must be great for ratings. I turned on the television recently and heard a valuable public-service announcement about the importance of mammograms, followed by a feature on Dateline about how even men get this deadly disease. Next morning, a radio talk-show panel discussed new breast-cancer findings.

I am grateful for the scientific interest, the continued focus and the intelligent minds tackling the problem, and I am hopeful that these present and future findings will improve the treatment outcome for most women, including me. I was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1996.

However, the information as presented by the communications media is blaring and relentless, a far cry from the down-to-Earth coverage that began in the 1980s when Betty Ford spoke out honestly about having breast cancer and opened the subject for millions of women.

The coverage today is blatantly sensational, heightening our anxieties and fears. For example, a story on breast cancer in Newsweek magazine last year featured the bold words BURN, SLASH and POISON on the cover. Those of us who have already been burned, slashed and poisoned would rather use different imagery for our experience.

Much of the coverage is too simplified, because it generalizes and appeals to our need for hope.

``Have we found the cure for cancer?'' asked the radio announcer opening the show I heard.

The answer: ``Yes, if you're a mouse,'' the announcer declared at the end.

Only after the experts peeled back the layers of information did we get the real story. The pattern was the same: Overstated magic ends up as a cautionary tale.

Yes, I know that oncologists are more hopeful and that many drugs are in the pipeline. These are the facts that give me hope and allay my fears, not the bloated promises for ``breakthroughs'' and cures so often touted by the popular press.

The recent celebrities who have graced my television, newspapers and magazines have all had some special ``spin.'' Carly Simon needs only ``light chemotherapy'' and probably won't lose her hair. What is light chemotherapy, and why do her publicists need to sanitize her experience? My oncologist said that if I didn't lose my hair (from adriamycin) that it might not be effective. Should I tell Simon this? Is she getting tamoxifen, and why do I care, why am I hearing these details and why are they not connecting with my experience and helping to normalize it?

Olympic skater Peggy Fleming's story was told recently on ABC's 20-20. Barbara Walters asked her how she felt when the doctor told her that the tumor wasn't benign. How did Barbara think she felt? Fleming had to know this was life-threatening. The entire story was created to bring us first into the doctor's office, then the radiation room and then back to Fleming's heroism.

There are thousands of women like myself who live with anxiety around periodic checkups and mammograms. This is normal and understandable, but the constant barrage of half-truths and idealized bravery by celebrities is taking a toll on many of us. Those of us who have been there know that we are not heroes because we accept treatment. We are not brave because we endure, and we cannot be role models if the news media are manipulating the truth. The truth is that many women with breast cancer have had ``real chemotherapy,'' have sat in the doctor's office and heard frightening news not just once after the mammogram, not just a second time after the biopsy, but even a third time after surgery.

I can take care of myself and remain diligent, but we must have some balance between an informed public and a frightened, anxious one. I, for one, would like to go through a few days without hearing about breast cancer.